K.K. Sasidharan, J.

Introductory Note

1. Whether the legal representatives of a deceased workman are entitled to continue the legal proceedings initiated by him challenging the order of dismissal from service and the related order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, by filing an application for impleading them as parties is the core legal issue raised in this intra court appeal.

Brief Facts

The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 3 was an employee of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, which was subsequently merged with the Indian Overseas Bank. The employee was dismissed from service. The order was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the employee filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 31 August 2004. The order was challenged by the employee before the Writ Court in W.P. No. 3738 of 2005. During the currency of the writ petition, the employee died. The legal representatives filed an application for impleading, which was allowed by the learned single Judge. Subsequently, the management filed an application to recall the order impleading the respondents 1 to 3 as parties, by placing reliance on a decision in Molysaramo Lukose (Smt) v. Spencer & Co., Ltd., Madras and another [1986 (1) LLN 469]. The application was dismissed. The order is under challenge at the instance of the management in this appeal.

Submissions of Parties

2. The learned counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on a Division Bench Judgment in V. Veeramani v. Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., and another [1983-96-L.W. 48 : 1983 1 LLN 426], contended that the scope of an industrial adjudication cannot be enlarged by impleading the legal representatives. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition would abate consequent to the death of the employee and it cannot be continued by the legal representatives.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the right to sue would survive even after the death of the employee and such being the position, the litigation can be continued by the legal representatives.

Analysis

4. The writ petition in W.P. No. 3738 of 2005 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 3 with a prayer to set aside the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service and the related appellate order and directing his reinstatement with backwages. The order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVI of 1947 was the order impugned in the writ petition.

5. The employee died pending disposal of the writ petition. The legal representatives filed an application and got them impleaded as parties to prosecute the writ petition. The petition filed by the Management subsequently to recall the order was dismissed by the learned single Judge, resulting in filing this appeal.

6. The view taken by the Division Bench in V. Veeramani (1983-96-L.W. 48) is relied on by the appellants to contend that the legal representatives have no right to continue the legal proceedings initiated by the employee, challenging the order of dismissal from service.

7. The Division Bench in V. Veeramani (1983-96-L.W. 48) considered the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and taking into account Section 2(1) of the Act, defining the term "Industrial Dispute" held that only the dispute between the employer and employee could be the subject matter of adjudication before the Labour Court. To put it otherwise, the Division Bench was of the view that since the legal representatives were not included specifically, it would not be possible for them to enter the field of adjudication of industrial dispute.

8. The dispute in the subject case though related to dismissal would also involve a question as to whether the legal representatives would be entitled to the consequential benefits in case